A DAY IN THE LIFE OF A REPUBLICAN
By John Gray

"Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his potfull of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought forminimum water quality standards.

He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. Hismedications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insuretheir safety and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employersmedical plan because some liberal union workers fought theiremployers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepareshis morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe's bacon is safe toeat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packingindustry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle isproperly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contentsbecause some liberal fought for his right to know what he was puttingon his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside andtakes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree-hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting ourair.

He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride towork; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportationfees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable publictransportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be acontributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay,medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because someliberal union members fought and died for these working standards.Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn'twant his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he'll get a workercompensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn't thinkhe should loose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It's noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay somebills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because someliberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers whoruined the banking system before the depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his belowmarket federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided thatJoe and the government would be better off if he was educated andearned more money over his lifetime.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening athis farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive todad's; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberalfought for car safety standards.

He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to livein the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankersdidn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electric untilsome big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong anddemanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republicans would stillbe sitting in the dark)

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on SocialSecurity and his union pension because some liberal made sure he couldtake care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to. After his visit with dadhe gets back in his car for the ride home.

He turns on a radio talk show, the host keeps saying that liberalsare bad and conservatives are good (He doesn't tell Joe that hisbeloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefitJoe enjoys throughout his day). Joe agrees, "We don't need those biggovernment liberals ruining our lives; after all, I'm a self-made manwho believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like Ihave." "

The biggest problem I have is "big government liberals." Many of these cases, it was true there were whistle blowers. But they certainly were not from the liberal government. The government more than likely, will try to maintain the status quo. Often, these reforms were done by Average Joes even when the government did not support them, be it Democratic or Republican. They were Progressivists who did not identify with the present Conservative/Republican and Liberal/Democrat.

Much of this was done by muckrakers-not liberals, not conservatives, just investigative journalists who revealed the corruption. Do not let liberals take credit where credit is not due. The muckrakers arose above the dirty sludge of the politics of conservatives or liberals to give hope to the other Average Joes. It is called morality. Conservatives do not lack it. Liberals do not inherit it.

These reforms were affected by a broad spectrum of people across legal, social, financial, and ethical reforms. Many governments worked on them together. Off the top of my head, the fixed rates on education were signed into law by the 2nd BUSH. It's a cute story with some lingering truths. But it is too biased, and remains just that- a story without conviction.

Cause they're not working and have lots of time between cashing their Government checks.

And don't forget, using other peoples' hard earned money to do "good" and look like a "champion" for the poor

Blue states subsidize Red states. Common knowledge.

And the more relevant question for you is, SHOULD THEY?

You're missing the point. You claim that liberals spend other people's money, when time and again, it's been shown that it's the liberal states that send more money to the traditionally conservative states.

Cause they're not working and have lots of time between cashing their Government checks.

And don't forget, using other peoples' hard earned money to do "good" and look like a "champion" for the poor

Blue states subsidize Red states. Common knowledge.

And the more relevant question for you is, SHOULD THEY?

You're missing the point. You claim that liberals spend other people's money, when time and again, it's been shown that it's the liberal states that send more money to the traditionally conservative states.

Actually you're the one missing the point because at the end you would advocate that the people who have should be coerced to subsidize those who have not. The issue has nothing to do with WHO is getting subsidized.

Cause they're not working and have lots of time between cashing their Government checks.

And don't forget, using other peoples' hard earned money to do "good" and look like a "champion" for the poor

Blue states subsidize Red states. Common knowledge.

And the more relevant question for you is, SHOULD THEY?

Yes.I know that all/most of us are self-made. But there is the dignity and compassion of humanity. You should help your fellow man. I will pay taxes to help my redneck neighbor down the streets who will not pick up beer bottles off his lawn, who continues to make offhanded homophobic remarks. I will also pay into providing his health insurance with the ObamaCare, despite that, thank God, I have never used the services of a hospital myself, and always pay cash for my physical exams, and will never need help from him. The US is not be less of a country because we help each other.

carmineastoria saidI know that all/most of us are self-made. But there is the dignity and compassion of humanity. You should help your fellow man. I will pay taxes to help my redneck neighbor down the streets who will not pick up beer bottles off his lawn, who continues to make offhanded homophobic remarks. I will also pay into providing his health insurance with the ObamaCare, despite that, thank God, I have never used the services of a hospital myself, and always pay cash for my physical exams, and will never need help from him. The US is not be less of a country because we help each other.

Don't worry, I'm a big believer in helping others and dignity and compassion. I just do not believe in providing an institution with unbridled power which then forces me to use my money to supposedly accomplish "good". We don't need government funded welfare and subsidies, what we need is more charity to help the needy.

People rarely spend other peoples' money as wisely as they spend their own.

“The more one considers the matter, the clearer it becomes that redistribution is in effect far less a redistribution of free income from the richer to the poorer, as we imagined, than a redistribution of power from the individual to the State." -- Bertrand de Jouvenel

Don't worry, I'm a big believer in helping others and dignity and compassion. I just do not believe in providing an institution with unbridled power which then forces me to use my money to supposedly accomplish "good". We don't need government funded welfare and subsidies, what we need is more charity to help the needy.

People rarely spend other peoples' money as wisely as they spend their own.

Yes. But we have not been able to figure out how to do it on our own without the government interfering. "Unbridled" might be too strong of a word. There is checks and balances, oversight, and for this President, the FOX new channel- I doubt they can do anything in the finance market without us noticing.I agree with your last sentence. Unfortunately, when we involve the government, it becomes too expensive, too fast. For example, I would love to see a strong health care system develop with the aid of the invisible hand. Because Medicare payments just ain't cuttin' it. Perhaps, about 50 years from now, we will have figured out how to not let the insurance companies rule us.

carmineastoria saidBut there is the dignity and compassion of humanity. You should help your fellow man.

i will CONTINUE to help my fellow man and be taxed to death in the process, ironically realizing that "I, as in myself" do not constitute a part of the population of said "fellow man," whatever that actually means:

mocktwinkie said“The more one considers the matter, the clearer it becomes that redistribution is in effect far less a redistribution of free income from the richer to the poorer, as we imagined, than a redistribution of power from the individual to the State." -- Bertrand de Jouvenel

True. But all models of governments will do that. I am not willing to live in a society without some rule of government.

carmineastoria saidBut there is the dignity and compassion of humanity. You should help your fellow man.

i will CONTINUE to help my fellow men and be taxed to death in the process, ironically realizing that "I, as in myself" does not constitute a part of the population of said "fellow man," whatever that actually means:

This man who earns $800,000 hopefully pays taxes in respect to that. He is probably not going to need mine or your help. He can already afford to clothe, feed, and pay his bills by his own lonesome. In fact, he probably help to support you.Like Christian said, it is just lack of public transparency.